Bammert v. Don's SuperValu, Inc.
646 N.W.2d 365, 2002 WI 85, 254 Wis. 2d 347 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine does not extend to an employee who is terminated in retaliation for the lawful actions of their non-employee spouse, when those actions are unrelated to the employment relationship.
Facts:
- Karen Bammert was an assistant manager at Don's Super Valu, Inc., where she had worked for approximately 26 years.
- Don's Super Valu was owned by Don Williams.
- Bammert's husband was a police sergeant in the city of Menomonie.
- Nona Williams, the wife of owner Don Williams, was arrested for drunk driving on June 7, 1997.
- Bammert's husband, in his capacity as a police officer, participated in the drunk driving investigation by administering a portable breathalyzer test to Nona Williams, which she failed.
- On August 28, 1997, Don's Super Valu terminated Karen Bammert's employment.
- Bammert alleged that her termination was in retaliation for her husband's participation in the arrest of her employer's wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Bammert sued Don's Super Valu, Inc. in the Dunn County Circuit Court (trial court) for wrongful discharge.
- Don's Super Valu filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Bammert appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted Bammert's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine provide a cause of action for wrongful discharge to an employee who is fired in retaliation for the actions of their non-employee spouse?
Opinions:
Majority - Diane S. Sykes, J.
No. The public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine does not apply when an employee is discharged in retaliation for the conduct of a non-employee spouse. The court reasoned that the exception is a narrow one, intended to protect an employee who is fired for either refusing to violate a law or for fulfilling an affirmative legal duty themselves. Bammert's claim, however, relates to a public policy that was vindicated by someone else (her husband), in a context completely unrelated to her employment. Extending the exception to cover the conduct of a non-employee spouse would be an unprecedented expansion with no logical limiting principle, as it could then arguably apply to the conduct of parents, children, or other relatives, thereby undermining the stability of the employment-at-will doctrine.
Dissenting - William A. Bablitch, J.
Yes. A narrow public policy exception should be recognized for the retaliatory firing of an employee in response to their police officer spouse's lawful actions in his or her official capacity. The dissent argued that there is a fundamental public policy, evidenced by bribery statutes, in ensuring the vigorous and uninfluenced enforcement of the law. Allowing this type of retaliatory firing provides employers with a tool to intimidate police officers and places officers in an untenable position of choosing between their sworn duty and their family's financial security. The proposed exception would be narrow, consistent with past precedent that protects employees who fulfill an affirmative legal duty, and would close a loophole that allows employers to retaliate against law enforcement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the narrowness of the public policy exception to employment-at-will in Wisconsin. It establishes a clear boundary for the exception, limiting its application to cases where the employee's own actions vindicate a public policy, typically within the employment context. By refusing to extend protection based on the actions of a third party, even a spouse, the court signaled its strong deference to the traditional at-will doctrine and its reluctance to judicially expand employee protections. This ruling creates a high bar for future wrongful discharge claims, requiring a direct link between the discharged employee's conduct and the public policy at issue.
